What is the best scheme for a Tech defense?

[Rock]

TED Roof Scheme is the best fit. SEE 2014...

You mean the 2014 team ranked #81 in total D....
yea, they were good.

 

[Rock]

Our D was awful in 2014. Our O was just that much better.

HEYYYYY!

we agree on something,

 

[Rock]

I actually would like our base to be a 3-4/3-3-5. I think we recruit athletes better than DL. I want the 4th guy in pass rush to be coming from anywhere.

I agree with 3-3-5.
Its not like we are getting pressure now, so I would like an extra DB for coverage or blitzing off the edge.

 

[AE 87]

Interesting thread. Here's my long-winded response. I'd appreciate any more knowledge input so I can refine my own thinking about the Tech game.

First, I'm a fan of both Neyland's Seven Maxims as well as Bill Connelly's Five Factors. They both attempt to define winning with key reminders of how to play the game, strategically. I know when I was younger, we did the same - recite five tenets before every practice. That said, I'm trying to define in my own head what playing football the Georgia Tech Way is all about. (Dodd did define it in the '50's, but the what's the 2016 version is my own question.)

Second, I researched articles, interviews, and videos with CPJ to see if this was summarized anywhere. I found some items where he did describe what he's looking for in a game, so that's a start. Ironically, I also researched similar items for Bill Belichick and found that the main themes were identical even if they run different offenses and defense.

Third, the stats. Paul and Belichick mentioned the same stats they look for in a game. They are ...

• Move the chains and sustain a drive. Both CPJ and Belichick said what they look for is simply to sustain a drive. And 3rd down conversions is the best metric to evaluate the ability to do that.
• Avoid mistakes on offense by making a big play. Most offenses, statistically, make a mistake in a 12 play drive ... fumble, missed assignment, etc. So, during a drive ... try to create at least one play for a big gain to reduce the chance for a mistake. Belichick called it making a big play, CPJ specifically said he looks for how many +20 yd gainers we have.
• Finish the drive and score. Both coaches said they wanted to score in the Red Zone. (Connelly doesn't like this metric because the percentages are very high, so the intel is of little importance. He prefers to look at scoring percentage once inside the 40 yd line ... the 4 down zone.) They also referred to Points per Offensive Drive as critical. (Which Connelly says, completely negates the need to go for FG's and one should always strive for the TD.)
• Play good defense and stop the other guy. Belichick specifically said he could care less about how many yards an opposing team drives on him. His thing is ... "Did they score?" CPJ has made similar quotes ... "I'd like to see them off the field, but did you see them score?" He didn't seem to stress over it. He did seem to think ... "Did we give them any big plays?" Both said what concerns them most is Red Zone Scoring.

What surprised me was that neither thought or opined very much on Field Position. I think Field Position is the most critical because it sets up how conservative or aggressive the offense can be. All things considered, I'd like to get out to the 40 asap to open up the TO. Just my thought.

So, in a nutshell ... Once you start, keep and sustain the drive (3rd down conversions are positive; fumbles, missed assignments, penalties are bad) ... Make Big Plays of 20 yards or more (and keep mistakes to a minimum) ... Score (points per drive) ... and don't worry about yielding yards, Don't Let the Other Team Score.

This is very different from the way say, Alabama plays, but it is clear. Belichick for example, said he only tracks Wins and to do that, you have to push Points. With a good offense, he doesn't worry about Defense much ... just stay ahead on points per drive and it will sort out. He doesn't care if he wins 7-6, 21-17, or 42-3.

Certainly tells me more why CPJ may not be so concerned about Bend but Don't Break.

Any thoughts? (And yes, I get it ... the NFL is a passing league and have given up on defense, but the quotes and phrases each used were almost word for word. So maybe there is something to it.)

I think my ppd vs pwr5 stat is pretty solid. A team's off ppdvpwr5 minus its def ppdvpwr5 has given some pretty decent correlation with national rankings. That stat is independent of field position. I haven't found a simpler stat for a short-cut correlation, but I'm attracted by 3rd down conversion or a combination of 3rd down conversion and 3rd downs/1st downs.

 

[Vespidae]

I think my ppd vs pwr5 stat is pretty solid.

Hmmmm ... I didn't think of that one. I might have to model that. Thanks.

 

[IronJacket7]

4-2-5

 

[Techster]

I love 34 defenses...IF it's coached well. The reason for this is the flexibility of the OLBs to drop in coverage or rush the passer which IMO can be disguised better in that scheme. It also requires better athletes at DE and OLB, and good athletes provide versatility. I always thought we were more effective when Roof put us in a faux 34 with guys like Gamble and Gotsis at the DEs.

I know Groh has probably turned a lot of people off on the 34 defense, but if you look at teams who run it well, it's really a joy to watch. Because of how the OLBs act, it can cause chaos for the OL. Chaos is a defense's best friend when you want to get to the QB.

 

[tech_wreck47]

I love 34 defenses...IF it's coached well. The reason for this is the flexibility of the OLBs to drop in coverage or rush the passer which IMO can be disguised better in that scheme. It also requires better athletes at DE and OLB, and good athletes provide versatility. I always thought we were more effective when Roof put us in a faux 34 with guys like Gamble and Gotsis at the DEs.

I know Groh has probably turned a lot of people off on the 34 defense, but if you look at teams who run it well, it's really a joy to watch. Because of how the OLBs act, it can cause chaos for the OL. Chaos is a defense's best friend when you want to get to the QB.

I don't mind a 3-4 my only issue is you better have a BIG PHYSICAL DL and the NT needs to be a guy like Adams who can move. Also big fast physical guys for your outside LB's and I'm just not sure if we have guys ready for that yet. Maybe in a few years with woods at DE Adams at NT maybe Saint amour at the other DE spot with some added weight or glanton. With swilling as an OLB and hopefully get a guy like Warner to play the other OLB spot.

 

[Techster]

I don't mind a 3-4 my only issue is you better have a BIG PHYSICAL DL and the NT needs to be a guy like Adams who can move. Also big fast physical guys for your outside LB's and I'm just not sure if we have guys ready for that yet. Maybe in a few years with woods at DE Adams at NT maybe Saint amour at the other DE spot with some added weight or glanton. With swilling as an OLB and hopefully get a guy like Warner to play the other OLB spot.

I think a 34 works better for us because DLs are not the primary rushers as they are in the 43. That's what we have problems with right now is our DLs can't get consistent pressure. 34 DLs are more about occupying blockers for the LBs to penetrate. 43 requires 2 DTs, as opposed to 1 DT for the 34. I think having a space eater like Adams certainly helps, but having a "jumbo" DT isn't the necessity most think it is. I think quickness and leverage with decent size (300-320 lbs) is good for the college level. Glanton could get there with his frame (currently 6'3 280) and he as the requisite quickness and athleticism, then of course we have Adams.

I think CPJ mentioned at the time Groh came on and said the same thing. It's tougher for us to find DTs, so it's easier finding one for the defense as opposed to 2. LBs these days are freaks, and there's more of them. They're really the premium position in the 34.

Here's a good write up of the 34 and the ideal type of players for it:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2007958-nfl-101-the-basics-of-the-3-4-defensive-front

 

[tech_wreck47]

I think a 34 works better for us because DLs are not the primary rushers as they are in the 43. That's what we have problems with right now is our DLs can't get consistent pressure. 34 DLs are more about occupying blockers for the LBs to penetrate. 43 requires 2 DTs, as opposed to 1 DT for the 34. I think having a space eater like Adams certainly helps, but having a "jumbo" DT isn't the necessity most think it is. I think quickness and leverage with decent size (300-320 lbs) is good for the college level. Glanton could get there with his frame (currently 6'3 280) and he as the requisite quickness and athleticism, then of course we have Adams.

I think CPJ mentioned at the time Groh came on and said the same thing. It's tougher for us to find DTs, so it's easier finding one for the defense as opposed to 2. LBs these days are freaks, and there's more of them. They're really the premium position in the 34.

Here's a good write up of the 34 and the ideal type of players for it:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2007958-nfl-101-the-basics-of-the-3-4-defensive-front

I have no argument for this I'm just thinking we don't have the LB's for it at this point and the guys at DL are a year or two away from being able to run it affectively. I would not be opposed to running it though as long as we were aggresive I think that's the most important thing over the 4-3, 3-4.

 

[Techster]

I have no argument for this I'm just thinking we don't have the LB's for it at this point and the guys at DL are a year or two away from being able to run it affectively.

True. I was just projecting for the type of defense GT could run considering the type of SAs we can recruit. LBs would definitely be an issue right now.

 

[tech_wreck47]

True. I was just projecting for the type of defense GT could run considering the type of SAs we can recruit. LBs would definitely be an issue right now.

Yea I wouldn't mind running it at all it would be nice having a Warner and swilling type OLB group.

 

[Jacketman1]

should we try a 2-5-4? have two defensive tackles, then 3 linebackers covering the middle and close to the hashes, 2 close to the sideline?

 

[Ibeeballin]

This question is worded wrong imo. It should be what philosophy is best for Tech defense. I like what we run now but we need to add the physical and most importantly smart D. For instance last week, knowing what we knew about Pitt, i wouldve added Dlineman(Adams) and stood the DEs up outside for contain to take away the jet sweep and forced Pitt to make plays in the passing game.

I want more pressure and build a fence on the 1st down marker and force quick throws and have guys who can tackle in space. I would like to see the secondary hold their alignment until the snap of the ball. I like movement shifting from the DL, Backers standing up in the gaps putting 7 guys on the line, safety blitzes. Understanding simple football concepts, if there is back going out there route behind so get depth and rally up to the flat. If there is a shallow drag route there is always something deep. Never cover grass while playing zone because you will never get picks/pbu like that. Im promise you could simply smart our way into three 3 n outs

 

[ilovetheoption]

The thing is, Roof CLEARLY believes in being sound. Like, there's a reason Rod Rook Chungong plays. There's a reason you hear him game after game after game talk about consistency and execution.

That means he doesn't believe in just unleashing the hounds and seeing what happens for better or worse. He doesn't believe in chaos being a better chance of getting a stop than plan. He's just not fundamentally the kind of guy who is going to say "screw assignments, we're going to attack BEYOND our ability to be sound, because that's our best shot".

Me personally, I think "your guys aren't good enough to get the stop by being sound. They're just going to get beat slowly instead of getting beat quickly." additionally, that has the downside of letting the other teams defense take a break and recover from the meat grinder that is Paul Johnson's offense.

I'd rather throw caution to the wind, send 5 to 7 every play, and force the QB to make plays into the face of that maelstrom all game long, rather than let him take his hammer and chisel and slowly chip the defense to pieces. The defense isn't a hard enough piece of marble to prevent that.

 

[tech_wreck47]

should we try a 2-5-4? have two defensive tackles, then 3 linebackers covering the middle and close to the hashes, 2 close to the sideline?

I can't tell if this comment is serious or not.

 

[Jacketman1]

I can't tell if this comment is serious or not.

i am serious, our defensive ends, minus Simmons, dont get any pass rush. If we recruited some faster DEs, we could use that formation and blitz from the LB spots

 

[kittysniper101]

The thing is, Roof CLEARLY believes in being sound. Like, there's a reason Rod Rook Chungong plays. There's a reason you hear him game after game after game talk about consistency and execution.

That means he doesn't believe in just unleashing the hounds and seeing what happens for better or worse. He doesn't believe in chaos being a better chance of getting a stop than plan. He's just not fundamentally the kind of guy who is going to say "screw assignments, we're going to attack BEYOND our ability to be sound, because that's our best shot".

Me personally, I think "your guys aren't good enough to get the stop by being sound. They're just going to get beat slowly instead of getting beat quickly." additionally, that has the downside of letting the other teams defense take a break and recover from the meat grinder that is Paul Johnson's offense.

I'd rather throw caution to the wind, send 5 to 7 every play, and force the QB to make plays into the face of that maelstrom all game long, rather than let him take his hammer and chisel and slowly chip the defense to pieces. The defense isn't a hard enough piece of marble to prevent that.

I don't think playing aggressive makes you inherently any less sound. It gives you a smaller margi n of error if your pressure doesn't get home or if the running back slips through a tackle, etc but I think that's a different issue, and a tradeoff I will gladly make.

I consider a sound defense to be one that plays smart with recognition and follows basic fundamentals well (leverage when covering, aligning quickly pre snap, few missed assignments, good tackling, timing in blitzes). I think any defensive philosophy can be sound if these things are executed well and the problem with our defense is that we don't. We play well below our talent level because we do things like cover grass instead of players as ibeeballin pointed out. I would actually be happy if I actually saw us play sound defense , regardless of the scheme/philosophy but we haven't done that in a really long time.

As an additional argument for an overall more aggressive approach, I think one could make a similar argument people make against our offense. Namely, we play soft so often that when we actually play up close, blitz, etc it's executed at a lower level, similar to when we have to run a 2 min offense. Things like playing in press man, blitz timing etc all take game reps as well as practice and we don't get it done.

 

[alagold]

a 7-4-2-1 might work

 

[jeffgt14]

There are times to play aggressive and there are times to play conservative. I don’t get why we can’t mix it up with a little bit of both. If our offense is rolling and the other team is just picking us apart all the way down the field we probably need to start gambling more. It’s probably better that they score fast so their D doesn’t get a break to rest up. Paul’s offense works best when he’s wearing down the defense and they get tired. When the defense gets 5+ gametime minutes of a break between series they’re just coming right back out as fresh as before. If we’re being conservative and stopping them on 3rd down then you might as well keep conservative. We just need to mix it up play to play or at the very least drive to drive.